IN THE NATION

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. I—People in most American cities are fed up with government that doesn't work, or doesn't seem to serve what citizens think is the public interest. Here in this sunlit city something drastic is being done about it via Proposition T.

This is an initiative proposal on which San Francisco voters will ballot Tuesday, while choosing a Mayor and city supervisors and passing on nine teen other less spectacular “proposi tions.” At first. glance, Proposition T looks ridiculous; if passed, it would prevent the construction of any builds ing over six floors or 72 feet in height without the specific approval of the voters in a general or special election.

But support for this plan has mush roomed due to the construction in downtown San Francisco in recent years of 21 high‐rise buildings, not many of them architectural gems; the city's skyline has been drastically altered, mostly for the worse. The sun ny, open atmosphere that used to pre vail here, many visitors and San Fran ciscans feel, has been invaded by too much steel, concrete, glass and greed. Argument rages in the city as to whether the high‐rises are an economic asset or a liability, and as to their ulti mate environmental effect.

Alvin Duskin, the leading proponent of Proposition T, argues that one effect of the high‐rises is to provide jobs for white‐collar commuters while driving blue‐collar jobs and workers out of the city. On the other hand, City Controller Nathan B. Cooper estimates that pas sage of the six‐story limit would raise the property tax by $1.44 in ten years.

Whatever happens to Proposition T tomorrow, the controversy and emo tion it has aroused are remarkable. Ob viously, a sizable number of voters, conceivably a majority, believe the city's political structure and officials have been ignoring the public interest by permitting and even encouraging the swift growth in high‐rise buildings. Proposition T, therefore, is essentially a means of giving the power of regu lation directly to the people, rather than to elected officials and bureau crats.

High‐rise building may be an issue rather peculiar to San Francisco, but that is not the case with the under lying sense of powerlessness and the sudden urge of plain people to get some control over issues that affect their lives. These are sentiments com mon in American political life today, whether it is on the question of un collected garbage, ever‐rising taxes, inefficient transportation, schools that educate no one or wars that never seem to end.

California's initiative procedures give voters here some recourse that they do not have elsewhere; thus, Proposition T might not be a precise model for future people's actions in other cities. Its success, nevertheless, might well encourage other spontane ous movements against ineffective and unresponsive governments, and its mere existence, with so much support, ought to be a warning to politicians and bureaucrats and the overriding interests they so often serve at the expense of the popular will.

It is notable for instance that those opposing Proposition T include the Chamber of Commerce, the major banks and corporations, of the area, real estate and construction interests and the labor unions; Mr. Duskin is suing two public utility firms for al legedly improper contributions to the opposition. Thus, although some minor ity leaders also oppose Proposition T, it is not hard for ordinary voters to get the idea that the city establishment is solidly lined up against the initiative and far high‐rise building, with the backing of city officials, most of whom are also opposed to Proposition T.

All this may prove unfortunate, be cause Proposition T, if it became law, might well be a cumbersome and in flexible answer to the high‐rise prob lem. Whatever the motivation of its supporters, its economic and other con sequences are conjectural at best, and it appears to negate certain parts of San Francisco's much‐praised Urban Design Plan (which would permit some high‐rise building).

For this danger, city officials and others opposing Proposition T have mostly themselves to blame. More rigorous control of high‐rise building, which great numbers of San Francis cans obviously wanted in the past, might have avoided the vote ‘ to be taken tomorrow, and more nearly safe guarded the economic and environmen tal, future of the city.

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.